Written by

| A Journal News editorial

About the legislation

• To read the special education bill, go to the Assembly’s website, http://assembly.state.ny.us, and type in the bill number — A10722A and S7722A — in the Quick Bill Search window.

More

ADVERTISEMENT

Gov. Andrew Cuomo vetoed a bill that would have changed the way school districts determine special education placements, and which could have given parents the upper hand in getting taxpayers to pay for private schooling, particularly in religious programs, sending special education costs soaring in some districts.

At a time when so many local school districts and their Albany representatives are complaining about under- or unfunded state mandates, the measure never should have reached his desk.

The bill demanded that districts give consideration to “home environment and family background” when making placement decisions for a qualified special-education student. It also mandated a rapid timetable for challenges and tuition reimbursement when a parent decides to place a child in a program that differs from what a district recommends. That is, the decision for a special ed placement could turn on cultural, rather than educational, considerations.

The bill, voted on during the last day of the Albany legislative session and introduced just a few days before, listed the fiscal implication as “undetermined.”

In his veto message, Cuomo said, “This administration … is committed to providing the best education and assistance to every child in New York, including children with disabilities. However, this bill unfairly places the burden on taxpayers to support the provision of private education.”

The idea behind the bill was that a child, especially someone with myriad educational challenges, would learn better in an environment where he or she was most comfortable — in a school that fit the cultural mores of the home.

The Orthodox Jewish and Catholic organizations that supported the bill said it would actually save districts money, because it would discourage costly legal challenges. But it could also be used to pressure districts to place more children in private programs, even if an educationally suitable in-district or state-approved program exists, and make it tougher for districts to fend off legal challenges to their placement decisions.

(Page 2 of 2)

Critics included almost all Lower Hudson Valley school districts, New York City Department of Education, the New York State School Boards Association, New York State Council of School Superintendents and New York State United Teachers, to name just some.

Phenomenal cost

They said that the cost to districts — already hemmed in by the state’s 2 percent property tax levy cap — could be phenomenal.

When a child’s needs cannot be met in-district, the state will help cover some of the costs of a placement in a program that is state-approved. If, however, a family secures approval for a child to be placed in a private school that is not among the state-approved programs, the home district would reimburse tuition.

“Although we respect the personal choices that parents make to raise their children in accordance with their faith and culture, it would have been wrong to obligate taxpayers to pay for these private choices,” New York State School Boards Association Executive Director Timothy Kremer said after the veto was delivered.

Assemblywoman Helene Weinstein of Brooklyn, the bill’s primary sponsor, has said she will consider seeking an override. Her colleagues who voted for this bill the first go-round — on the final day of the session after it had just been introduced a few days before — would be wise to closely read the legislation, and demand a cost analysis before considering another vote on a short-sighted plan that is akin to a voucher system.

Cuomo in his January budget address declared himself “the lobbyist for the students” in New York’s high-cost, low-performing education system. Special education programs certainly need examination — costs and quality don’t necessarily correlate. He and legislators can work together to craft reforms that provide quality special educational services and are affordable for school districts.